ITO (E), New Delhi V. Charanjiv Charitable Trust, New Delhi

ITA 3295/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97066 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Charitable institution; Accommodation entries; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 69C; 260A; 12A; 68; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3295/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER(E), VS CHARANJIV CHARITA BLE TRUST, TRUST WARD-III, 115, ANSAL BHAWAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 16, K.G. MARG, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110001 DISTT.CENTRE, (PAN: AAATC0747N) NEW DELHI-110092 I.T.A.NO.1963/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST, VS ITO (E), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT B Y: MD. MOHSIN ALAM, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATY EN SETHI, ADV. DATE OF HEARING: 10.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.08.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI DATED 1 1.12.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 90/10-11 FOR AY 2003-04. ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 2 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3295/DEL/11 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- '1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS OF RS. 75 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE DONATIONS B E CONSIDERED AS PART OF TOTAL INCOME FOR APPLICATION OF CHARITAB LE OBJECTS, SINCE THESE DIRECTIONS ARE IN CONTRAST TO CIT(A)'S OWN DE CISION ON MERITS WHEREBY ADDITION OF RS. 75 LAC MADE U/S 68 O F THE ACT STANDS UPHELD BY HIM. 2. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE LT. ACT HAVE NO APPLICATION ON CORPUS DONATIONS OF RS. 75 LACS WHICH WERE DISCLOSED AS PART OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THESE DONATIONS WERE ACCOUNTED AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND THE SAME WERE NEITHER REFLECTED IN THE INCOME & EXP . A/C. NOR SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE'. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKH BY OBSERVING THAT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED IN ABSENCE OF PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE DONORS FOR THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD I. E. FY 2002-03 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE AY 2003-0 4. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SIMPLY FURNISHING OF CONFIRMATION WIT H PAN AND ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS DO NOT SUFFICE TO SATISFY THE RIGORS OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LA KH U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING GROUND NO. 3, 4 A ND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 3 FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 1 1 OF THE ACT REQUIRES COMPULSORY APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PUR POSE TO THE EXTENT OF 85% OF TOTAL INCOME AND THE APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE EX CEEDS 85% OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED AND ALLOWABLE. THE CIT(A) FINALLY DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF IMPUGNED ADDITION AS A PART OF TOTAL INCOME APPLIED TOWARDS CHARITABLE OBJECTS. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THIS S ECOND APPEAL WITH THE SOLE GROUND AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. DR SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS OF RS.75 LAKH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE DONATIONS BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TOTAL INCOME FOR APPLICATION OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS. LD. DR STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED T HAT SINCE THESE DIRECTIONS ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO CIT(A)S OWN DECISION ON MERITS WHEREBY ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKH MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT STOOD UPHELD BY HIM. L D. DR FAIRLY CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ALSO ON THE FAC TS BY HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAVE NO APPLICA TION ON CORPUS DONATION OF RS. 75 LAKH WHICH WERE DISCLOSED AS A PART OF INCOM E BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THESE DONATIONS WERE ACCOUNTED AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND THE SAME WERE NEITHER REFLECTED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR SHOWN IN ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 4 THE STATEMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REL EVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD I.E. 2002-03. LD. DR FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNE D ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE AO. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKH MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) RIGH TLY CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 11 REQUIRES COMPULSORY APPLICATION OF INCOME ON CHARIT ABLE PURPOSE TO THE EXTENT OF 85% OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND RECEIPTS AND THE ASS ESSEE APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE DURING THE RELEVAN T FINANCIAL PERIOD, THEREFORE, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING TH E AO TO CONSIDER THE SAID AMOUNT AS A PART OF TOTAL INCOME FOR APPLICATION OF FUNDS TOWARDS CHARITABLE OBJECTS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CO NTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC ARE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.07 AND THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT AY 2003-04 IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. LD. DR PLACED A REJOINDER TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT WHILE THE IMPUGNED DONATIONS HAVE NO T BEEN CONSIDERED AS GENUINE AND CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SA ID DONORS ARE ALSO IN CLOUDS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKH MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, THE SAID AMOUNT OF IMPU GNED DONATIONS CANNOT BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS AS REQUIRED U/S 11 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE AMENDED PR OVISIONS OF SECTION ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 5 115BBC OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.2007 AN D THE PRESENT CASE PERTAINS TO AY 2003-04. 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 6.4 THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CONSI DERED. IT IS SEEN THAT DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE TH7 PARTIES/THEIR D IRECTORS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES/THEIR DIRECTORS, THE GENUINENESS OF THESE DONATIONS COULD NOT BE ESTABLI SHED. ALL THE PARTIES WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HAWALA I.E. PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON R ECORD, I UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS 75 LACS U/S 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. 8. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND NO. 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE S AME AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION :- 7. GROUNDS NO. THREE, FOUR AND FIVE ARE TAKEN TOG ETHER. THESE ARE THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS TO THE EFFECT THA T EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS 75 LACS IS UPHELD, THE APPLICATION OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR FAR EXCEEDED 85% OF THE STATUTORY LIMIT REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITAB LE PURPOSES. ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE TOT AL INCOME (INCLUDING RS 75 LACS) HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS 7,47 ,87,061/- (6,72,87,0611- + 75,00,000/-) 85% OF THE SAID AMOUN T WORKS OUT TO RS 6,35,69,002/- AGAINST WHICH THE INCOME APPLIE D AS COMPUTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS RS 8,80, 74,737/-. 7.1 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN NOT TREATING THE SUM OF RS 75 LACS AS PART OF TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE AP PLICABILITY IS TOTALLY WRONG AND ERRONEOUS. ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 6 7.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT AND RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS O F THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTI ON) VS RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION [2007] 294 ITR 76 (DEL. ). IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(22), HE CAN CLAIM THE BENEFIT THER EOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME DEEMED TO BE CHARGEABLE U/S 68. 7.3 UNDER THE SECTIONS 68 TO 69D, UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, MONEY; INVESTMENTS, EXPENDITURE, ETC. ARE SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 68 AND 69A C AN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT TREAT A PAR TICULARS RECEIPT AS INCOME. BUT IN CASE OF CHARITABLE ORGANI SATIONS, SINCE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS ARE SHOWN A APART OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE SECTION 69, 69, 69A OR 69C. IN A RECENT C ASE, THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIT(EXEMPTION) VS KESHAV SOCIAL AND C HARITABLE FOUNDATION [2005] 278 ITR 152 HELD THAT ANONYMITY O F THE DONORS CANNOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT UNACCOUNTE D MONEY HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. SECTION 68 HAD NO APPLICATION TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE DONATIO NS AS A PART OF ITS INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME AND ITS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 7.4 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CASE LAW AND THE LEGA L INTERPRETATIONS MADE THEREIN THE POSSIBILITY OF INV OKING SECTIONS 68, 69, 68 TO 69C DOES NOT SEEM FEASIBLE. HERE IT I S WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT HAD RE JECTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF WANCHOO COMMITTEE IN 1973 WHICH W ANTED TO TAX ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AT THE RATE OF 65%. THE SELECT COMMITTEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AS LONG AS THE MO NEY WAS SPENT FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IT DID N OT MATTER WHETHER THE SOURCE WAS ANONYMOUS OR DETERMINED. 7.5 THIS, POSITION HAS ONLY BEEN ALTERED W.E.F. 011 04/2007 WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 115BBC. SINCE THI S PERTAINED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 SECTION 115BBC IS NOT APPLI CABLE. 7.6 SECTION 11 REQUIRES COMPULSORY APPLICATION OF I NCOME ON CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT OF 85% OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE APPLICATION BY THE APPELLANT OF THE INCOME FAR EXCEEDS 85% OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS RECOMPUTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. I FIND THAT THE APPELLAN T'S CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 7 CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF RS 75 LACS AS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME FOR APPLICATION OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS. THE APPELLANT TH EREFORE SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 9. FIRSTLY, WE RESPECTFULLY NOTE THE DICTA LAID DOW N BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(EXEMPTION) VS KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (2005) 278 ITR 152 (DELHI) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S 11, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE VOLUNTA RY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY DISCLOSED I TS DONATIONS, BUT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF DONORS. THE FACT T HAT THE COMPLETE LIST OF DONORS WAS NOT FILED OR THAT THE DONORS WER E NOT PRODUCED, DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DON ATION RECEIPTS. THIS IS MORE PARTICULARLY SO IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE ADMITTEDLY MORE THAN 75 PER CENT OF THE DONAT IONS WERE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT DISCLOSED THE DONA TIONS OF RS.18,24,200 AS ITS INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE DISPUTE D THAT ALL RECEIPTS, OTHER THAN CORPUS DONATIONS, WOULD BE INC OME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS, THEREFORE, FULL D ISCLOSURE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO APPLICATION OF THE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATUR E, SINCE IT WAS DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 12A.OF T HE ACT. 10. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WHEN WE EXAMINE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, ADMITTEDLY AND UN DISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DONATION OF RS.75 LAKH WHICH WERE ADDED BY THE AO TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THE SA ID ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 8 UPHELD BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE PASSI NG THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WITH THE CONCLUSION AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. TUR NING TO THE ISSUE OF REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI EXPLICITLY HELD THAT TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S 11OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE VOLUNTARY. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE COMPL ETE LIST OF DONORS WAS NOT FILED OR THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED, DOES NOT NECE SSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNT ED MONEY BY WAY OF DONATION RECEIPTS. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES O F THE ASSESSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IT WAS DULY REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE AC T, THEN IN THE SITUATION OF FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO APPLI CATION OF THE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS BUT ALSO SUBMITTED NAMES, CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH PAN NO., ADDRESS OF THE DONORS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. H OWEVER, THE AO AND THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE D ONATION COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS ADD ED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY F ACT TO CONTROVERT THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE CHARITABLE TRUST ARE CHARIT ABLE IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSEE ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 9 APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF ITS INCOME INCLUDING IMPUG NED DONATIONS TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSES DURING THE FINANCIAL PERIOD UND ER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS SITUATION, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN FOLLOWING THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF D IT(E) VS KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA) AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE SAME, ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF M ERITS IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1963/DEL/11 12. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATING ITS SUB MISSIONS IN THE BRIEF SYNOPSIS/BRIEF SUBMISSIONS DATED 10.8.2015 SUBMITTE D THAT IN CASE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AG AINST THE DEPARTMENT, THEN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WILL BECOME ACADEMIC SUBJECT TO F URTHER DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL TO HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL ALS O SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF ASSESSEE TO CONTEST ITS L EGAL OBJECTIONS TOWARDS REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IF RE QUIRED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO AGITATE THE ISSUE FURTHER IN THE CASE WHERE THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FAILS. 13. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. IN VIEW OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE, SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BY THE EARLI ER PART OF THIS ORDER, THEREFORE, LEGAL OBJECTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BECOME ITA 3295/D/11 & 1963/D/11 ASSTT.YEAR: 2003-04 10 ACADEMIC AND WE DISMISS THE SAME WITHOUT ANY FURTHE R DELIBERATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON14.8.2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 14 TH AUGUST 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR